Stand or Nah?

[Hawk]

1) I know they are "incrementalist/gradualist approaches", which is why I put them forward against what I perceive as back-sliding, and why I kept reiterating that those approaches would constitute "slow forward movement". But they are approaches currently not being practically explored in our government, and I have less confidence "our judicial/electoral systems will remedy or, at very least, address over" a time that is sufficiently on the horizon.

2) Here we're simply using different goal-post. I'm more interested in the selective, line-item bases of discussion, because—while "on balance" progress on race relations is nice—I think looking at or arguing for purely "on balance" metrics obscures the many instances of on-going failure. I'm also wary of back-sliding, which is why I focus on the "line-item".

3) I'm not sure there are good answers, under our current economic ordering, beyond "liberal tweaking". The socialist would argue this is precisely the reason that an upending of our capitalist economic ordering is necessary.

- Yeah, I got that, I just wanted to re-emphasize it. Can you really say that they are approaches "not being practically explored" though? Maybe it'd be more accurate for you to just say: "These things need to happen now, and I don't think it would be especially prudent to wait for the usual machinations of government to bear out."

- I don't suppose that argument is wrong, it just seems a little nit-picky.

- So you believe that poverty is the primary factor contributing to racial inequality?

 

[Julio3000]

@Julio

It's really not though. Especially when you take it back to Nietzsche, like I did.

I also linked scholarly articles on the issue.

Hypothesizing about something is not the same thing as advocating for it. I could do the same for communism.

Maybe this kind of stuff isn't weird or obscure to me because I wasted a decade of my life studying PS.

Ok. I think it'd be extremely charitable if I accepted that p.o.v.

But yeah, if you say so. I suppose the next step is accepting that all those good-faith proponents of Confederate monuments weren't aware that they were marching with Nazis in Charlottesville. All those "Western chauvinists" were probably shocked to learn that they were shoulder-to-shoulder with Nazis, huh?

Along those lines, I'm sure all of the "white genocide" retweets around the Trump campaign were totally innocent.

 

[Hawk]

Why would it be extremely charitable?

Because you are unable to accept that you are wrong?

 

[sturg33]

Ok. I think it'd be extremely charitable if I accepted that p.o.v.

But yeah, if you say so. I suppose the next step is accepting that all those good-faith proponents of Confederate monuments weren't aware that they were marching with Nazis in Charlottesville. All those "Western chauvinists" were probably shocked to learn that they were shoulder-to-shoulder with Nazis, huh?

Along those lines, I'm sure all of the "white genocide" retweets around the Trump campaign were totally innocent.

Goodness how many time are we going to go around in circles on this.

If you submise that every single person who was at that rally is a neo-nazi, then you must also accept that every single person that protests with anti-fa are communists.

I assume you're not ready to make that leap. So unless you can prove that every single person at that rally was a neo-nazi sympathizer, then I'm not sure what else there is to discuss.

Just call everyone racists like usual and move on.

 

[Julio3000]

Well, when I said I was being extremely charitable in accepting they point of view, I meant Hawk's apparently sudden sentiment that he was just funning when making a case for fascism.

But, I said at the time that I had been to rallies before where various flavors of extremist lefties showed up...but, er, this rally was called "pro-white" by its organizer. There was no subterfuge and no pretense about who organized it and who was set to speak. Why are you guys so intent on ignoring that? If you were just good ol' right wing non-racists, why would you pick this event to come out and wave your flag?

 

[Julio3000]

So while that doesn't mean that every single attendee of the rally was a racist Nazi sympathizer, it does mean that every individual who chose to attend in support had the same opportunity to see who organized it, for whom, and chose to show up.

Featured speakers: Richard Spencer, Mike "Enoch" Peinovich, Matthew Heimbach. These are WHITE SUPREMACISTS. Guys. No winks, no nods.

So, yes. I consider that anyone who showed up in support and marched for that is culpable. Why is that so hard to accept?

 

[Julio3000]

So, sorry to be making WIIILD accusations of racism here, about an event that was organized by white supremacists.

 

[Julio3000]

But, yannow, very fine people, et al.

 

[Hawk]

I wasn't 'making the case' in jest, but I was making it, academically, in the context of a discussion about National Socialism not being a totally inherent byproduct of fascism.

I guess that makes me pro-fascist, just like I'm apparently pro-Russia (in a way that is, you know, obviously bad), and, more recently, a racist white supremacist.

The moral arbiter is on fire lately.

 

[Julio3000]

So, honest to god, I think the burden of proof should be very much on y'all when defending the very fine people who decided to show up and march in Charlottesville.

 

[Hawk]

Point of clarification: The rally was called "Unite the Right"

 

[Hawk]

"it does mean that every individual who chose to attend in support had the same opportunity to see who organized it, for whom, and chose to show up."

Eh, I'm not buying that.

 

[Hawk]

If you were just good ol' right wing non-racists, why would you pick this event to come out and wave your flag?

The General.

 

[Hawk]

Plus, it's not like there's much else better to do in Virginia.

 

[sturg33]

So, honest to god, I think the burden of proof should be very much on y'all when defending the very fine people who decided to show up and march in Charlottesville.

The only thing I've defended is people's right to free speech, and people having a legitimate beef with removing a statue of Robert Lee.

It'd be nice to live in a country where you can have that opinion without the accusations of being a racist or nazi

 

[Julio3000]

Point of clarification: The rally was called "Unite the Right"

Ok. So who organized it? Who were the featured speakers?

Will you do me the courtesy of answering these questions honestly?

 

[Julio3000]

The only thing I've defended is people's right to free speech, and people having a legitimate beef with removing a statue of Robert Lee.

It'd be nice to live in a country where you can have that opinion without the accusations of being a racist or nazi

You're quite welcome to believe that.

And when you go to an event organized by and featuring actual, living, breathing, white supremacists and neo-Nazis, be prepared to take some **** for it.

 

[Julio3000]

If you were just good ol' right wing non-racists, why would you pick this event to come out and wave your flag?

The General.

So, I've mistaken your apologia for fascism as advocacy for fascism. I've mistaken your verbose apology for Putin's Russia and advocacy of closer diplomatic ties with same at the expense of historic alliances as "pro-Russia." And I've mistaken your stated support for the alt-right with, I guess, support for the alt-right.

I've got you all wrong, I guess.

 

[Julio3000]

I'm gonna go to this pro-Confederate statue rally, I guess. Wonder who's gonna be there?

[.0065 seconds later]

Oh, David Duke and a guy who does a podcast called the Daily Shoah?

Well, that doesn't exactly sound like my jam, but I'm all for Uniting the Right, so I guess I'll go.

 

[sturg33]

I don't know how to get to the end of this argument...

Would it make you happy if we said everyone at the rally is a neo-nazi? And then, anyone who defended people''s right to be at the rally is also a neo-nazi? Can we then move on?